-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Kjetil Torgrim Homme <kjetilho@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>|The HTTP protocol ([RFC2616], section 3.7.1) mentions ISO-8859-1 as a
>|default character encoding when the "charset" parameter is absent from
>|the "Content-Type" header field. In practice, this recommendation has
>|proved useless
>
>it is not a RECOMMENDATION, it is a REQUIREMENT ("are defined to" -- no
>leeway there).
>
>|because some servers don't allow a "charset" parameter to be sent, and
>|others may not be configured to send the parameter. Therefore, user
>|agents must not assume any default value for the "charset" parameter.
>
>so therefore this reasoning doesn't apply. you can't ignore a
>requirement out of hand.
You're splitting hairs. It's clear what the authors of the HTML 4
Recommendation intended and what that paragraph is intended to mean.
Reinterpreting it to fit your conclusion doesn't alter that.
>I'll reiterate: when it comes to specifying how HTTP works, the HTTP
>RFC trumps the HTML spec.
Says who? Even within the IETF you'd have trouble making that stick. You could
argue that the passage be dropped from the HTML Rec -- in errata or during
specification -- on the grounds that the HTML WG has no business overriding
the HTTP WG (I have several recent examples of that from USEFOR vs. MESSFOR);
but once it's published (as a Rec or an RFC) the requirement stands until and
unless it is revoked by errata or update.
- --
If you believe that will stop spammers, you're sadly misled. Rusty hooks,
rectally administered fuel oil enemas, and the gutting of their machines,
*that* stops spammers! -- Saundo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP SDK 3.0.2
iQA/AwUBPuINoqPyPrIkdfXsEQLc6QCgvjBy4YgMda3t+SeasWc6dVSGgAAAoIt2
TioDuLLl5yvuHvSL243UONra
=zL4z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----